Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

North Korea Wins!!!

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    DeadHand wrote: »
    Miserable nation.

    If they had oil and weren't in China's back yard we'd have probably seen some gallant attempt at regime change by the West long ago.

    As it is, it suits China and the West to leave it as a hellish, zombified no-man's land regardless of the abject misery this causes any human being unlucky enough to be born there.

    Geopolitics at it's most cynical.


    Hmmm, I'm not so sure it's such a miserable place. I would wager that the hundreds of millions of low caste peasants in India (the world's largest "democracy") who scavenge in tips and sewers for life's daily needs would love to have a guaranteed roof over their heads in North Hades Korea. I'd hazard a guess that they wouldn't care if One Direction was banned from the airwaves.


  • Options
    #93
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Hmmm, I'm not so sure it's such a miserable place. I would wager that the hundreds of millions of low caste peasants in India (the world's largest "democracy") who scavenge in tips and sewers for life's daily needs would love to have a guaranteed roof over their heads in North Hades Korea. I'd hazard a guess that they wouldn't care if One Direction was banned from the airwaves.
    Ok, I'll bite... What about the people that speak out, are 'sent away' never to be seen again,it also affects thier family's. or those that are put to work till they drop dead in nk?!

    Edit: Btw I really don't think anyone pays much attention to your posts at this stage.
    It's just you're posts are so out there and, imo full of bs.
    That's all I can say without getting the mods on my back.
    So Yea..


  • Options
    #94
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Obama just said that Sony made a mistake by pulling the film.


  • Options
    #95
    JONJO THE MISER
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12,333 ✭✭✭✭JONJO THE MISER


    To be honest it served sony right, pure idiots for making this film.


  • Options
    #96
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    To be honest it served sony right, pure idiots for making this film.
    Why? It may be a ****e movie, but they have the right to make a movie. If it fails cause it's crap, fine. But why should they be threatened, what's next?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,025 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Watched President Obamas press conference just now and he said he was going to "fcuk North Koreas sh1t up"

    refreshing


  • Options
    #98
    Xenji
    Registered Users Posts: 11,505 ✭✭✭✭Xenji


    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    To be honest it served sony right, pure idiots for making this film.

    Your name suits your post!


  • Options
    #99
    DeadHand
    Registered Users Posts: 2,724 ✭✭✭DeadHand


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    Picking your battles is good strategy, not hypocrisy.

    It bloody well is hypocrisy when the stated main objective of the battle is to "liberate" the population of the target country when it's not and the populations of other countries have it as bad or worse.


  • Options
    #100
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    DeadHand wrote: »
    It bloody well is hypocrisy when the stated main objective of the battle is to "liberate" the population of the target country when it's not and the populations of other countries have it as bad or worse.
    Can you expand on this?
    Not sure which way you are going, so I don't want to jump the gun. Thanks


  • Options
    #101
    NoMore MrNiceGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 157 ✭✭NoMore MrNiceGuy


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Hmmm, I'm not so sure it's such a miserable place. I would wager that the hundreds of millions of low caste peasants in India (the world's largest "democracy") who scavenge in tips and sewers for life's daily needs would love to have a guaranteed roof over their heads in North Hades Korea. I'd hazard a guess that they wouldn't care if One Direction was banned from the airwaves.

    There isn't actually anything stopping Indians emigrating to North Korea. Where they would in fact, unlike modern India, have a good chance of starvation in artificial famines caused by the regime.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Dayum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 687 ✭✭✭Dayum


    This whole facade has been the most brilliant piece of advertising/marketing/publicity I've ever encountered.

    Bravo to the guy that thought it up...


  • Options
    #103
    NoMore MrNiceGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 157 ✭✭NoMore MrNiceGuy


    Dayum wrote: »
    This whole facade has been the most brilliant piece of advertising/marketing/publicity I've ever encountered.

    Bravo to the guy that thought it up...

    Only people who have no idea of corporations would think a marketing department would convince executives to release internal emails to promote a movie (one not playing anywhere).


  • Options
    #104
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    Dayum wrote: »
    This whole facade has been the most brilliant piece of advertising/marketing/publicity I've ever encountered.

    Bravo to the guy that thought it up...

    No, just... No.... Think before posting, oh is that you Kim?


  • Options
    #105
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Who knows, maybe Kim secretly directed the movie and is using all this to create the best hype ever. lol


  • Options
    #106
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The fact that the Americans permitted a movie to be made about the aspirational and/or fictional murder of a person who is alive and well, and a head of state too, is disgusting.

    The fact that Kim managed to scupper the movie peacefully without resorting to any actual violence is a credit to him and his team. Whether Sony leak the movie or not, they have been badly stung and a valuable lesson has been learned.


  • Options
    #107
    Custardpi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    recedite wrote: »
    The fact that the Americans permitted a movie to be made about the aspirational and/or fictional murder of a person who is alive and well, and a head of state too, is disgusting.

    Yes, damn the Yanks & their free speech principles. So hypocritical too. There's no way anyone would ever be allowed make a similar film about an American president. Oh, wait...


  • Options
    #108
    Xenji
    Registered Users Posts: 11,505 ✭✭✭✭Xenji


    recedite wrote: »
    The fact that the Americans permitted a movie to be made about the aspirational and/or fictional murder of a person who is alive and well, and a head of state too, is disgusting.

    The fact that Kim managed to scupper the movie peacefully without resorting to any actual violence is a credit to him and his team. Whether Sony leak the movie or not, they have been badly stung and a valuable lesson has been learned.

    Some people are very easily disgusted these days it seems, also Sony Pictures Entertainment is a subsidiary of a Japanese company, who's current president is British, so it has nothing to do with Americans , but go on with being blissfully uninformed and ignorant in your disgust.


  • Options
    #109
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Xenji wrote: »
    Sony Pictures Entertainment is a subsidiary of a Japanese company
    An American subsidiary, based in California, and operating under the US legal and regulatory framework.


  • Options
    #110
    Xenji
    Registered Users Posts: 11,505 ✭✭✭✭Xenji


    recedite wrote: »
    An American subsidiary, based in California, and operating under the US legal and regulatory framework.

    God bless Wikipedia.


  • Options
    #111
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    recedite wrote: »
    An American subsidiary, based in California, and operating under the US legal and regulatory framework.

    Where do you think the decision making is being made?

    Not that it even matters. The chains of cinemas pulled the plug before Sony did anyways.

    Jim Norton had a pretty good take on things:

    Jim Norton


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Custardpi wrote: »
    There's no way anyone would ever be allowed make a similar film about an American president. Oh, wait...
    Made in Britain and vilified in the USA. Hilary Clinton's quote on that movie was "I think it's despicable. I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick."

    The Bush administration did not comment about the film; as White House spokesperson Emily Lawrimore remarked, "We are not commenting because it doesn't dignify a response."
    It only survived because it focused on the political changes in the aftermath of an assination. The murder itself was not the point of the film, nor was the murder treated as something funny.


  • Options
    #113
    NoMore MrNiceGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 157 ✭✭NoMore MrNiceGuy


    Wompa1 wrote: »
    Where do you think the decision making is being made?

    Not that it even matters. The chains of cinemas pulled the plug before Sony did anyways.

    Jim Norton had a pretty good take on things:

    Yes. The threat of legal action could have bankrupted them.


  • Options
    #114
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    Xenji wrote: »
    Some people are very easily disgusted these days it seems, also Sony Pictures Entertainment is a subsidiary of a Japanese company, who's current president is British, so it has nothing to do with Americans , but go on with being blissfully uninformed and ignorant in your disgust.

    It's clearly an american movie. It also looks like total arse.


  • Options
    #115
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    NoMore MrNiceGuy wrote: »
    Yes. The threat of legal action could have bankrupted them.

    Yes, because they'd be worried about being bankrupted by it?...

    They release movies to make money, not cost them money. Also, they didn't pull it from the cinemas first. The cinemas did it themselves.


  • Options
    #116
    Custardpi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    recedite wrote: »
    Made in Britain and vilified in the USA. Hilary Clinton's quote on that movie was "I think it's despicable. I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick."

    The Bush administration did not comment about the film; as White House spokesperson Emily Lawrimore remarked, "We are not commenting because it doesn't dignify a response."
    It only survived because it focused on the political changes in the aftermath of an assination. The murder itself was not the point of the film, nor was the murder treated as something funny.

    Villified yes, but still permitted. Do you seriously believe that even if the film had been a comedy that the American government would have banned it or threatened the British filmmaker? Even at their most craven the Bush administration would not have been so stupid as to blatantly attack free speech in such a way.


  • Options
    #117
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    South Park have killed real world people many times. Hot Shots was pretty brutal with Saddam Hussein. I'm sure there are many more examples.

    When it comes to comedies it should be anything goes. Fair enough if you don't think it's funny, that's your prerogative.


  • Options
    #118
    Connemara Farmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,975 ✭✭✭Connemara Farmer


    Screw North Korea, Sony should release this movie one way or another. When did "The West" lose it's balls?


  • Options
    #119
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Custardpi wrote: »
    Even at their most craven the Bush administration would not have been so stupid as to blatantly attack free speech in such a way.
    Free speech is never an unrestricted right.
    There are always restrictions, including amongst others, offense against an individual, incitement to hatred, violating an individual's right to privacy.
    Generally speaking, you can express hate against an ideology or an idea, but not against an individual person.


  • Options
    #120
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Standman wrote: »
    When it comes to comedies it should be anything goes. Fair enough if you don't think it's funny, that's your prerogative.
    It probably is funny, but I don't agree that anything goes if it's in the name of comedy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Custardpi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    recedite wrote: »
    Free speech is never an unrestricted right.
    There are always restrictions, including amongst others, offense against an individual, incitement to hatred, violating an individual's right to privacy.
    Generally speaking, you can express hate against an ideology or an idea, but not against an individual person.

    The US constitution provides extensive protection for freedom of speech, far more than in Europe. Although it's not unlimited it's difficult to see on what grounds a comedy film about killing a US president would be made illegal. The US courts have on numerous occasions upheld the right to produce & sell offensive & even obscene material.


Advertisement